re: Is being racist always wrong?

and let me just say, in response to the OP, i define racism as judging a person solely on race, which is pretty in line with how the OP describes it (you can only feel superior if you judge a person based solely on race)

and that's wrong in every instance, imho

let me add this caveat: judging a person of a particular race who is acting in accordance with a shitty culture of that race is fine, to me. i separate culture and race completely and i judge cultures early and often.

Massive efforts of assimilation and indoctrination, historically unparalleled in terms of intention,and the documented invention of race with which it coincided,were taken to keep up appearances I suppose?

Racial taxonomy and hierarchy since antiquity?

This conversation is going nowhere...

quote:

---

Utter nonsense. Colonialism, especially European colonialism, was an arms race in terms of economic resources. The idea was to collect as many raw materials from different areas of the world and bring them back for processing in the native land.

---

Exactly. It was basically about free stuff, and that goes back to long before present-day racial classifications were invented.

quote:

---

In early empires, such as the Babylonians and Assyrians, conquered peoples provided slave labor and military numbers - a different type of resource but a resource nonetheless.

---

And others were even more "colonialist" -- the Persians allowed local self governance in exchange for tribute.

quote:

---

Since the beginning of time, groups have warred, conquered, and enslaved one another for some type of gain in resources. The idea that this entire practice was rooted in racism is nonsense to anyone who studies it.

---

There it is. The whole racism meme is about who gets what, how much...and how/why do they get it.

Egalitarian ideology supposes that the weak should be systematically rewarded by seizing economic affluence from the strong, to equalize affluence/power throughout the classes. Merit or character-based qualifiers, nws.

In effect, reward the weak or even immoral, and punish the strong. Could be calamitous and suicidal. Re, Bundy's "sitting on the porch" commentary.

Is it really true that White genes are "recessive"? What does that mean? Does it mean that in a White/Black union...that Black genes/characteristics will be bio-chemically dominant? It is easily observed that (generally so) that Black genes tend toward more physical aggression; and re "Bell Curve" stats, it's not hard to imagine why. So, it would not be a stretch to suspect or scientifically qualify that such aggression is reflected at the most basic chemical levels. Fascinating.

Regardless, if 'value' and relative 'superiority' are (ideally) measured by MLK's rubric of moral "character" as opposed to raw physical/intellectual power...then a lot of the antipathy and division and self-worth defined by worldly status/affluence...goes away. If not...then the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" game goes on.

IMHO, BOTH will. And the only philosophical explanation for such a paradoxical eventuality, is found in the Quantum Paradigm. Parallel Universes..."many mansions". We become the essence of what we CHOOSE to believe. Fine with me, though I realize that such is utter insanity in the current, general worldview.

What-a-scene!

Yes, humans practices evolve, good "point". The question concerns the role of race in colonization; to this question, racial taxonomy and natural groups were incorporated in light of European colonization and played a major motivating factor. I direct you to a quote from the P.M. of France, which you apparently dismissed for reasons unbeknownst to me.

Racial taxonomy did not exist in any legitimized sense of discriminating "value" prior to the enlightenment. If you didn't know that prior, or don't believe me off hand given my B.A. in philosophy and political science, I will differ to your ability to use Google. Your inability to stay on topic simply further cloud others in ignorance.

Have a good day.

quote:

---

to this question, racial taxonomy and natural groups were incorporated in light of European colonization and played a major motivating factor.

---

and this is nothing special with regards to colonialism or europeans. this has occurred in basically any expansion of any group in the history of mankind. as a group, we try to expand our borders (and all the power and resources that come with it). we create an enemy. we create a narrative that we are superior and they are inferior and evil. we use this to justify our group killing them. the other group acts in kind, and in an attempt to rally its group, identifies my group as inferior and evil. the superior side wins and writes the histories.

wash. rinse. repeat.

sometimes race is used. more often, another variable is used.

quote:

---

Racial taxonomy did not exist in any legitimized sense of discriminating "value" prior to the enlightenment.

---

this is 100% wrong

i don't know why we try to do that. i think it has something to do with avoiding how terrible mankind used to be. we're just not comfortable viewing them in that way and we would rather make our contemporary selves feel guilty for much more minor transgressions

"Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical traits. Such use promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[1][2][3]"